I am astounded by the number of meaningless objections with entirely uncreative reasoning.

If one actually thinks of the analogy in terms of the show, it is perpetrated by the Cylons decades after they analyze their opponent, mankind,begin to infiltrate them and the largest source of their offense was made possible through a honey pot. Nothing more than social engineering followed by a wellorchestrated attack on an unsuspecting opponent. Mankind was caught completely unawares due to the fact they saw no threat.

Networking is not just electronic, it bridges both human and machine and nations have been using this to their advantages in intelligence gathering and war making with for decades. If any nation were to attack it would be from years of setting things in place, key assets with high ranking officials or technical officers. Why not infiltrate numerous communications and mobile devices or nearly any technological corporation and over years, make backdoors, gather your information, blackmail key targets or terrorize them for information and ways into more secure areas. Cripple infrastructure and cause widespread panic economically and either let it fester and cause civil unrest or further use electronic attacks.

The arguments about militaries being able to rely on older methods of communication, surveying or information gathering are purely asinine. If you cripple a modern militaries communications and targeting capability and then attack, the force that react quicker and is not wondering why everything went black will win. Grab the tempo, use it to your advantage. Their inability to pass information efficiently will allow you keep the tempo, you're not for one bite you're going for the whole thing. Blitzkrieg with overwhelming force, physically and digitally thanks to years of patience.

Woh, calm down looks like you're too far in the frenzy of your orgasm to notice I was not disputing, nor in anyway arguing the historical precedent of those incidents.I was saying that in the context of an argument if you only take into account what benefits you, then you really aren't actually producing an argument. You are simply restating something I learned about in 6th grade.

Again...refer to above before throwing around hyperlinks like it means anything. In case you still don't understand this concept it means that while an agency may do something wrong in the moral context of a citizens understanding you have failed to actually list any of their worth. By saying all these agencies should cease to be please actually consider their historical precedent and use before spouting off 4-5 incidents in the 20-21st century.

Reread your article bud, they declined to hear. Does not amount to not having the actual right to sue them. Nor did you specifically say what to sue them for beyond the generalization of their inclusion with government agencies.

This is a statement of caution, not at a demographic of the travel of people to foreign nations or their mood about going there. I have friends who have been to China, Russia, Mongolia, Tibet, the Middle East as well Africa. They were not so afraid that they opted to stay in Europe. You have to understand that there is a risk everywhere and whether or not the state cautions in those area it is not equivalent to the statement of their general malaise in the travel to these places.

Rights are regularly circumvented for this very reason, they're called exigent circumstances. Your weirdly hyperbolic sarcasm aside, I wasn't talking about Kim Dotcom or NZ. Don't really care about them. I was mainly speaking non-violent intelligence gathering to preclude violence.

If you really want to drag it out, this doesn't have to do with what should be but with what is. Stop barking at the status quo and reality, he was made out to worse than a murder too bad. He stole from rich people, shouldn't have been that dumb. That simple. You want to commit crimes know who you are commiting them against and don't be surprised when you get caught or held for what is flimsy legal reasoning or downright illegal. It's like pissing off the mob and expecting not to have your family tortured or something.

Wow, you really eat this shit up. You do realize I wasn't speaking about the US in particular, it was a generalization since you said all agencies with their authority.You can list as many of the negatives as you wish but your argument has no merit if you only include those. I don't care about the current battle with Kim Dotcom.

Of course, all intelligence is gathered through the use of torture and state licensed assassins wander the world in search of depriving foreign and domestic citizens of the life and liberty alike. Makes perfect sense.

I am not really sure where the whole travel point is going as it is patently incorrect. We do have the right to AT&T et al, actually. Since you have brought the corporations up, non-state agencies are ones with greater authority. It is a readily acknowledged fact of civilization that governing bodies allow smaller specializing policing agencies to break laws in the interest of the people. If you want the sublimation of these agencies the only thing that would have happen is non-state agencies would gain the power in that vacuum and the legitimacy of the states authority would be undermined.

What I have a problem with is if they just set up their service and US customers start using it, and the US government think that means that company is now US jurisdiction.

I hate to say but it is, at least in this case. Although it isn't really jurisdiction, they could do it regardless. The US District and other federal court which the CFTC acts through has authority through their laws and the connection with other nations to bring legal recourse to foreign companies. First don't take this as if it were unique to the US and second don't believe that its a blanket statement.

You're very unlikely to see the US governement sue a foreign company over more munane things, this has to do with the sale of commodities futures, not stuffed bears. You will note how long it took the CFTC to begin this suit of litigation after years of infraction. The choice to do so now is for among other reasons to highlight their lack of tolerance for this exact type of behavior because of potential foreign and domestic companies considering it.

I don't think it should be the burden of every online service to follow every law of every country on the planet just because their business takes place on the internet.

This not about following every law as the majority will not affect them or their business. It is about actually being aware of the laws of your clients home country, which in this case was not asking much. If you're going to sell commodity futures, then you know what they are and that selling them off exchange is illegal. Sometimes people falsely believe that the internet is a mystical place wherein if you subvert the intent of the law you magically have no legal obligation or recourse.

Again, its not about business it is the specific instance of the infraction in the commodities futures. If you will for a moment consider if the CFTC had no legal authority to sue them and consider how corporations would utilize their unregulated foreign futures exchange or any similar design.

Several things to note here. First, a "well managed fund" is not HFT. HFT is a very specialized category of trading.

You're correct, I understand the difference and must admit I was both sleep deprived and sick. I neglected to type parts of what I intended and ending upwith that. I earlier made mentioned HFT platforms and should have been more precise in that I meant the electronic trading systems were merely capable of performing proficiently such trading techniques. I was refering mainly to those using algorithmic trading types as a primary form of trading.

I concede on your second and third notes, and that I was somewhat over zealous from sleep deprivation. I did not intend to preclude the chance of individuals getting returns postively but rather that the influx of inexperienced traders through different trading sites has given people the false belief that they should move from losing their money in Vegas and now to the NYSE. There probability dictates through research that it would be wiser to entrust to a longer term more equitable security investment.

For those who actually have some experience through their profession they should still not be blind to dangers known from psychology and mathematics, norso arrogant to ignore the changing times. It has been a long time since the fall of LTCM and the continued research and exponential advances in technology promise rough seas in trading from increased liquidity.

My positon is to interpret and follow the law. If they are not in the US yet are soliciting US citizens to buy and sell futures then they are entering our market by engaging them. They are not expected to regulate their behavior towards all their patrons only those in the US. They had the option, they completely ignored it. If you have US customers you have varying degrees of legal obligation to the regulatory committees of the US. If their job is to enforce their laws and police those who are offering services to a US citizen then they should have civil authority to act against them. If not this seriously undermines their ability to perform their function.
If your intent is to dissuade me of this belief on the grounds that it being unfair or similarly over reach in their regulation then you don't to. I have lauded Intrade's platform before regardless of their legality and I am hesitant to believe the CFTCs stated objective was their true motivation. Ideally one should not be penalized for the potential bad luck of others but time has shown government to not be so conservative in their beliefs of the expectations of their citizens. Nonetheless the CFTCs formal action will note likely impede their business and questioning the legitimacy of their action has little chance to motivate overturning its decision.
Finally if a US citizen is truly motivated to engage Intrades services again this is really quite unlikely to be difficult. Use a proxy server and either set up accounts with non-US banks or buy prepaid cards from non US banks.

Yes they did begin to refuse to accept US credit cards, however they continued to break their cease and desist order well before that. Also the refusal was based on US based banks, you can circumvent this easily. The law regarding off exchange trades was already established and just because on belives that it is ok to break laws because you feel like doesn't make it right. You think it is over reach because the CFTC is telling an Irish company not to allow US citizens to buy and sell options through them as they would not be regulated as per the law. Yeah that makes sense. There is a reason why the options market has been regulated you can simply look at their role along with CDSs in the financial crisis.
If the CFTC simply ignores the actions of sites like Intrade then it doesn't take an idiot to realize that in order to avoid financial regulation in a market that could
make you billions of dollars just set up a server overseas and avoid the law. Hell companies in other countries will realize how to completely avoid the financial regulation their nation, the answer is to simply place it in a different country. If they hadn't continued as they did there probably wouldn't be a complete denial of service to US citizens, it'd only be for the predictions that happened to be actual options.